Pages

We tried to tell you guys but you wouldn't listen but hey whatever, what matters now is what 5th Edition can do for D&D and unlike many here I see many things that it could do:

- A rule-lite system that will make learning and playing the game fast and easy, practical, closer to the very early editions of D&D and catering to those who liked those.- A proper martial/magic system that evoke heroic fantasy instead of trying to mimick a video game (powers will forever be the worst thing ever about 4th edition). Catering to those who liked 3.5 and its ability to make magic something special.- A solid battle system, taking the best 4th edition's streamlined and clean rules has to offer and but ensuring they are not mandatory.

In my opinion they can bring together the best out of all previous editions and create with them a near-perfect one, and from what I have seen from the L&L and Mike Mearls' design philosophies, I 'm sure they will pull it off. Things are going to get LEGENDARY :D!

- Ability Scores removed or at least mean less. Never again do I want the main stat to provide attack bonus since that forces you to bump it up every time. A system where each ability provide a small combat benefit to each class. And yeah... make odd score matter. Not only as a requirement for some feats.

- Healing Surges and Daily powers removed. How annoying isn't it to make a 5 encounter dungeon where the players have to take a "nap" the door before the final fight against the corrupt cardinal in his castle. Of course the player doesn't know the length of the dungeon and they just ran dry on surges and powers. In some story case dungeons where the players doesn't have all the time it forces some strange situations where the players just have to go back to the "base" or that the villain escapes.

- A better healing system. Healing surges is not good enough but it was an improvement. Maybe a system where getting healed gives you some kind of penalty. How severe depend on class, feats and so on.

- Keep encounter powers. There is no problem with casters to have more options in powers than melee characters but don't go back to melee only using basic attacks and such, as done in the essentials. The players should be allowed to run on full steam each encounter and I don't want them to hold back. I still want the wizard to be able to cast a really powerful spell but it would have to cost more. Maybe this can only be done with a different kind of resource system.

- A system where combat goes even faster. You know what really hurts role playing. It's not that there ain't enough fluff and such but simply that combat takes too much time. Without combat there is often little motivations for the player to role play and when 3 encounters to defend the king against an assassination attempt takes more time than the role playing between the players and the king then of course there gonna be more of a Roll Playing game. At the same time the system must not be dumbed down. How to achieve that... Idk.

I don't think its impossible to make a modular rule set. Take the fighter:1st ed. you are a tough guy who can use a sword2nd ed. same as above, but you also got skills/proficiencies3rd ed. same as above, but you also got feats4th ed. same as above, but you also got powers

This is a very interesting idea, especially if things are well compartmentalized. For those who want to play a dungeon crawling adventure game, like 4E, one doesn't need things like profession-type skills (craft, profession, perform), but for those who want to play a world simulating adventure game, like 3E, those things were sorely missed from 4E. Groups who just want to dungeon crawl and rely upon their own problem solving don't need anything other than core class abilities.

Since we seem to be getting some reading from WotC here, here are my wishes:

A return to the classic race/classes of 2E/3E. Those races and classes should exist form the get go (and perhaps with the new 4E ones to not alienate those players).

Decouple class from role (as essentials started doing). A warlord could be a leader fighter, avenger can be striker paladin, and invoker can be controller cleric. Define the classes by their theme and the way they do things, not by how their actions fit into the party. Class identity was a huge part of older editions, and it should be retained.

Remove the workday. No daily powers, no daily healing surge pools. Make everything at-will or per encounter, or maybe things could be used only with some resource like action points (regenerating every 2 encounters is good for big guns that you don't want to always be in play). The game should flow by the speed of plot, not by "I ran out of powers". Having some mechanical effect like fatigue is fine, as it is very archetypical of the genre (guys, we're too tired, we need to stop), but don't force that into how the DM designs an adventure.

Keep roles. I think the controller and striker roles need to be looked at, but definitely keep the idea of roles. I think everyone should do similar damage (though that can be modified, such as by using a two-handed weapon instead of a shield ...), and I think everyone should be able to pick up status-effect type "powers". In old editions, the "strikers" were about mobility and the "controllers" were about range, focus on that.

Remove the workday. No daily powers, no daily healing surge pools. Make everything at-will or per encounter, or maybe things could be used only with some resource like action points (regenerating every 2 encounters is good for big guns that you don't want to always be in play). The game should flow by the speed of plot, not by "I ran out of powers". Having some mechanical effect like fatigue is fine, as it is very archetypical of the genre (guys, we're too tired, we need to stop), but don't force that into how the DM designs an adventure.

why is there so much hostility to having anything other than a potentially-lethal combat drain resources?

Even a series of level-minus-3 combats should eventually wear out the party. A non-combat challenge that drains a couple healing surges from the party should matter.

Now perhaps the resources shouldn't be tied to "daily" - I actually would love to find something else to tie them to, RP-heavy civilized-urban-adventure games that might only have one combat encounter per game week would benefit from that.

But not everything should refresh after each encounter. There should be some longer-term resource management.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

- A proper martial/magic system that evoke heroic fantasy instead of trying to mimick a video game (powers will forever be the worst thing ever about 4th edition). Catering to those who liked 3.5 and its ability to make magic something special.

This one statement feels so wrong. personally I love the power system and find it to be one of 4e's greatest features. and at the same time the whole modularity of the new system would suggest that not one group is going to be "catered to".

Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

i will say one more thing though, i think it is sad as hell that there arent more supporters of 4th ed on here, very few posts have any kind of melancholy that 4e is going away. most seem thrilled to death to get a modular retro-clone

I love 4E but still see room for improvement.

I won't condemn them for producing a modular retro-clone until I actually see it and can determine if that looks accurate. Granted, I'll be surprised if they don't do something that stupid...

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Phew...it took me an hour to read all of the posts. lol. But seriously, I enjoyed reading everyones comments. There are so many valid points and mixed emotions.

Here's my say:

I have been a DM and player since the late 70s. I've enjoyed each version of the game, and I have boxes of books in my attic. I enjoy DMing 4e most, and I'm optimistic that 5e will just be a better game for DM and player.

But, what is most important for me is that the online tools (including the Virtual Tabletop, Monster and Character tools) are all available immediately when 5e breaks. Since I've been using these tools, I've rekindled my fascination with D&D, and I think one of the biggest problems with 4e was the way WoTc botched the timing of online tools and VTT. Not having those elements up and running from day 1 (especially after promising them in their books) was a critical oversight.

Although I own 4 of the 4e books, and I used to read them often, now, since I can use my homemade DM screen, the online tools and the VTT (since I can't play with my old buddies in person), I'm rocking and rolling. Therefore, if there is online support for 5e, I feel confident that I'll give it a try.

Like always, most DMs and gaming groups decide what works for them. They use the rules they like, and they dump ones they don't. They make houserules and their own campaigns and games evolve. If there is value added benefits to 5e, and WoTC supports it properly, I'm hoping it will be a terrific new edition.

I just hope they clean up feats. Feats try to cover way too much design space.

I think this is a case of a multitude of writers that design feats but are not privvy to the "rules." 4th edition design originally stated that feats would be toned down and less important. Thus why there's only a few feats in the PHB that anyone actually has a use for these days. New feats became better quickly. I think feats need to pick a side. They either need to be decidedly impressive generally or decidedly unimpressive generally.

Although I think I'd rather that feats were separated so that you pick combat feats and non-combat feats. But who's to say feats are even going to be in the next edition?

I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.

I just hope they clean up feats. Feats try to cover way too much design space.

I think this is a case of a multitude of writers that design feats but are not privvy to the "rules." 4th edition design originally stated that feats would be toned down and less important. Thus why there's only a few feats in the PHB that anyone actually has a use for these days. New feats became better quickly. I think feats need to pick a side. They either need to be decidedly impressive generally or decidedly unimpressive generally.

Although I think I'd rather that feats were separated so that you pick combat feats and non-combat feats. But who's to say feats are even going to be in the next edition?

Feats and Talents or something. 2 seperate pools would be the way to go.

The constant reboots are annoying for people who play Psionic characters. How many years am I going to have to wait to play a Psion this time around? It's really ridiculous. There are huge year long gaps between when my group migrates to the New System and when I get my psion/psionicist/dude with brain skills.

Also, I liked the idea of Epic Destinies and hope they are retained in some fashion. Having good rules for playing a Demigod in training was lots of fun.

I haven't played 4th ed, but I believe they've taken some effort to improve on spellcasting from 3.0/3.5. What I'm talking about is how 1st-level wizards can cast like 2-3 spells every 8 hours. I understand that they're supposed to be weak as when starting out, but seriously. Per-encounter, per-day and at-will is okay, but I would prefer: MP, recharging (resting for like 1 hour, getting some casting back but not health), or cool-down would solve a lot of problems, if done right (the last would probably be ok from a marketing POV, since a lot of video games do that these days; MP is MP).

Talents would be a good idea. They work in Modern. Emphasis on class features over a surplus of feats is a good idea. Definitely stick with that. Don't neglect feats, of course. Just don't go crazy with the amount.

Favoured classes that actually make sense based on the text. In 3.5, Gnomes were defaulted to Bards despite their description being clearly more suited to Wizards. Elves were clearly druids, but got Wizard as their favoured class. As long as that mistake isn't repeated, I'm happy.

As they go through the process of reviewing the structural design and removing hidden assumptions, they need to make a list of the assumptions they remove. And make sure that this list is prominently posted, with a suitable caption, in every developer's office.

There should also be a second list of the assumptions they keep. That list should be similarly posted.

I favor one on each side of the computer screen.

Every bone in my game design obsessed body is screaming in approval of this methodology. If this is a project that's going to take on such a high hurdle it needs to treat it like the hurdle it is and come out the strongest D&D has ever been.

If feats are going to be big, make them ALWAYS BIG and don't give us trashy useless feats that bloat the game. If you aren't going to focus on adventure modules right away then just don't give us any half-done attempts. Whatever you guys decide, if you're already starting to listen to us like what I'm posting right now, I really, really hope it is at the very least consistent. The biggest appeal of indie RPGs to me is when they take a very specific subject matter and they nail it. GURPS tried to take a broad subject matter and... kinda stumbled around a bit and eventually got some footing. D&D Next, as it's come to be deemed via its Twitter hashtag, is planning to be THE edition of D&D. The 800 pound gorilla in the room of fantasy roleplaying games that everybody plays and stocks the shelves at big retail as well as the friendly local gaming store. The ideas you devs give us, on paper, sound brilliant. The best of 40 years of experience with a little whipped cream and a cherry of new stuff on top? Alright, that sounds like a dessert I'm willing to order. Just make sure that when it arrives it isn't... mislabelled.

Also, I liked the idea of Epic Destinies and hope they are retained in some fashion. Having good rules for playing a Demigod in training was lots of fun.

This is a good point. Epic Destinies were a great idea and I hope to see them reappropriated in the next edition too. I think that my favourite was the Thief of Legend, for its hilarious and fitting abilities. And I think that's what should be taken from Epic Destinies -- they need to make you feel awesome, and it really doesn't necessarily have to be combat bonuses. In fact I think I'd prefer it to not be combat bonuses (or if there's combat benefits, for it always to be tangential like passive stealth is).

Favoured classes that actually make sense based on the text. In 3.5, Gnomes were defaulted to Bards despite their description being clearly more suited to Wizards. Elves were clearly druids, but got Wizard as their favoured class. As long as that mistake isn't repeated, I'm happy.

Favoured classes were a multiclassing mechanic. Multiclassing likely won't work like it did in 3rd edition (and I'm hoping it doesn't work like in 4th edition either), so there would be no point to favoured classes. Though if this will be a modular system, maybe they'll make a multiclass method that resembles 3rd edition's as well as one that resembles 4th's and some other ones.

This whole "new edition with different design goals" thing has rendered there little worthwhile to say. Just wait and see, I guess? Sky's the limit.

I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.

As you may have read in the New York Times, it’s an exciting time for Dungeons & Dragons. We are happy to announce today that we are developing the next iteration of D&D, and will be looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with us.

Talk about this column here.

4th Edition is fun and my friends and I have scrapped 3.x, 2.x, and 1.x to focus on 4th for the past 3 years. the only problem is that combat takes too much time, and wizards has built a business model based on requiring a constant stream of income from people for whom 2-3 books can last us 10 years of pleasure. It's a shame to see WotC put 4e to bed, but WE'RE NOT MOVING. I kept all my 1.x and 3.x books to help me to add flavor when I DM, but with some 70 books in my closet, I'M DONE BUYING STUFF. except pre-painted minis. I hear Paizo is working on those.

As you may have read in the New York Times, it’s an exciting time for Dungeons & Dragons. We are happy to announce today that we are developing the next iteration of D&D, and will be looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with us.

Talk about this column here.

4th Edition is fun and my friends and I have scrapped 3.x, 2.x, and 1.x to focus on 4th for the past 3 years. the only problem is that combat takes too much time, and wizards has built a business model based on requiring a constant stream of income from people for whom 2-3 books can last us 10 years of pleasure. It's a shame to see WotC put 4e to bed, but WE'RE NOT MOVING. I kept all my 1.x and 3.x books to help me to add flavor when I DM, but with some 70 books in my closet, I'M DONE BUYING STUFF. except pre-painted minis. I hear Paizo is working on those.

^^Almost exactly this. I've spent close to a grand on DnD in a year and a half, between a ton of minis and tiles, every book except adventures, and the DDI.

I really love 4th. I was dismayed about Essentials, and was sad to it drive people's opinion of Dnd down; and now, just as things seem to be getting back on track (HoTFW, Monster Builder),here comes 5th...

Well WOTC, you're not getting my $$$ for any post 4th edition books, and I already turned off auto renew when you went online only for CB, so I'll probably kill that too. I started during 2nd, and moved over to White Wolf when 3rd came out. Who knows where I'll go next, but if/when support for 4th dries up, it won't be with WOTC/DnD.

Sigh... I wish they'd have said they were making a 4e add-on called D&D RETRO or a side game like gamma world. 4e still has room to grow and it makes me sad that the reason we've had light content has been the fact that they were making a new game instead of putting out quality product, fixing problems and giving some classes/races the love they needed. Oh well...

I have to say that if the L&L articles are an indication of the direction they are going, I don't think it'll be the game for me. For me, I'm happy with about 90% of 4e. Going back to the 'good old days' doesn't sound like a good thing to me. If that's what I wanted I've got all the blackmoor through 3.5 books on the shelves. The fact that I'm playing 4e over them should say something about what I like. And the modular idea is one that I have yet to see work very well in a RPG.

WOTC, if you want to sell product to all the pathfinder people, just publish pathfinder stuff. If you want to sell product to 4e users, then maybe you should focus on that. Trying to sell the same product to both groups is going to be nigh impossible. Now you guys might do the unlikely and make a game to bridge both. I signed up for the playtest, so we'll see. I hope for something awesome but I expect something that pleases no one.

Actually one last thing, directed at any Wizards of the Coast employee that may be scanning these posts. Yeah, you. Look up the web series Extra Credits season 3, episode 21: Playtesting. Watch it. Watch it and make it your temple. Convince everyone on staff to do the same. Follow it to the letter, because so far I'm worried that you guys might not be. Nothing personal, but... well, it's in the video. Some people make their projects personal. When you're trying to gather and use playtesting (and use it to the max like you guys appear to be doing), it can't be personal.

Honestly, there are quite a few of their videos that I've watched and though, "WotC needs to watch this until it seeps into their brain matter".

Past the fan that I am a fan of much of what 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons does, I'll leave judgement, doomsaying and angry posting or immense elation to everyone else for now, unless or until I can get my mits on specific evidence of them "doing it wrong" or "doing it right". Past that, I still have yet to purchase every 4th ed bit of material, and now I at least know I should stock up sooner rather than later. ;)

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly.
Dimitry: God I love being Neutral.
4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.
Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.

I just hope they clean up feats. Feats try to cover way too much design space.

I think this is a case of a multitude of writers that design feats but are not privvy to the "rules." 4th edition design originally stated that feats would be toned down and less important. Thus why there's only a few feats in the PHB that anyone actually has a use for these days. New feats became better quickly. I think feats need to pick a side. They either need to be decidedly impressive generally or decidedly unimpressive generally.

Although I think I'd rather that feats were separated so that you pick combat feats and non-combat feats. But who's to say feats are even going to be in the next edition?

I'd actually prefer a 3 pronged attack: class features that appear each level, little bumps that one can choose from that would normally be class feats, and combat and non-combat would switch off. Also, racial features to deal with combat and with non-combat (possibly cultural things, not sure) that would be every level as well, but set at odds with the aformentioned class features. So basically, at level 2 you would pick 1 from 2-3 combat class features to augment, and 1 from 2-3 race non-combat features to augment. And then reserve feats for general stuff only. Everything else would be inserted into the feature model, as if it was expected to make the character more powerful. The reason is simple: defining the character by race and class would then be not only assumed, but important, important enough to be a core tenent of the system. And feats would be more what they feel like they're intended for: general increases in power and ability. being better at x weapon, y armor, quicker at acting, etc. Features would be things like extending the teleport range of an eladrin or allowing them to gain a +2 to one of their class skills, or letting a rogue get better sneak attack damage or better stealth or intimidation.

Basically, bolted on feats. And since you get one each level, their power could grow gradually but consistently. Kind of like Perks in Fallout 3.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly.
Dimitry: God I love being Neutral.
4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.
Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.

Well interesting times are ahead. While I loved 4e, it had several issues could only be solved with a new edition. As for the design goal of being the best edition for all the disperate groups, the only way I see this happening is a modular system with a truly solid core. Make no mistake this is a all or nothing gamble.

If this new "iteration" is to work then several things that need to be kept in mind. If you are not going to support an option dont put it in. If a something isnt understood (ala the controller role at the time of 4e release) then wait till it is firmly grasped. No tack on subsystems (mastercrafted armour) or bandaid fixes eg feats to fix class features) for design problems.

One last thing I want to mention is that "soon" is seen as vulgarity that should not be used in the future if you truly value and respect your customers. I find myself strangely optimistic about this new "iteration" and will be even more so if WoTC can loose some of its bad habits it has picked up over the last 4 years.

I do not want vancian casting back per se but I really do NOT like what they have right now. The whole at will thing/encounter/daily though is part of the problem of 4e feeling like a video game with every character feeling the same.(so not even a good video game).

It is a fairly easy fix though, you just add something like mana(or just be honest and use fatigue). Then you end up with the wizards being able to do something really ridiculous once before they keel over, something interesting a few times, or something boring all day long. And since they generally know how to do more then one thing it matters what they pick but they are only BEST at one thing so they keel over pretty quick when not operating in their area of expertise.

Now the other major thing that was a problem in 3.5 is the magic users were way to broad, not nearly focused enough (though btw with a simple feat they got an at will low level power so its not like they did not exist before 4th). I want my wizards to feel like planeswalkers in mtg. They have very specific area they are good at. Sure chandra can produce any kind of fire effect she wants, and if you want her to open a door with magic she can certainly do it. But you are just not going to be able to close that door later and chances are it was a bit noisy.

The system has to produce wizards like we get in the good fiction. And not gandalf like wizards either, we want Dresdens. The same is true about the other character types.

I've already signed up for the playtest. I started playing in the dying days of 3.5, right when Pathfinder's first adventure path was released and 4th edition was announced. I've played both 4e and Pathfinder since and enjoy them both. I'm a little sad to here that the clock is officially ticking for 4e, but I have faith in WotC's employees, who are D&D fans like the rest of us. I look to the new iteration and its implementation with curiosity and hope.

The announcement of 5e is just 24 hours old and I've already seen about 100 different pieces of advice on how to build the new edition, much of it highly contradictory. The whole "everything for everybody" approach is going to be very difficult to achieve and playtesting has the potential to be a giant mess unless it's handled properly. I really hope WotC has a top notch plan on how they are moving forward or this project will be heading off wildly in all directions.

I can only see it working one way: The basic design is done, playtesting will simply be tweaks and looking for bugs the designers have missed.

I do hope, however, that WotC gets it right for I fear this will be their last chance for a long time to make a new version of D&D. Please don't screw this up.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

haha wow. theres gonna be a lot of terrible ideas thrown at the devs it looks like

ill always be thankful for 4th and the guys like heinsoo and collins that got fired and blown out, and 20 year+ vets that got dumped at xmas. thanks for making a great game that didnt try to sell out to critics

also thanks to wotc for saying they will leave 4e tools up

i will say one more thing though, i think it is sad as hell that there arent more supporters of 4th ed on here, very few posts have any kind of melancholy that 4e is going away. most seem thrilled to death to get a modular retro-clone

i will also say in a way im glad they will move on to 5th so they can longer keep tinkering with and twisting the original vision of 4th just to appease some critics

i love 4e and 1e and b/x and becmi and still play them so it is hard for me to see any benefit of a new edition; seriously whats in it for someone that loves 4th? it seems like a big apology edition to me by folks that werent on the 4e squad anyway

4e wont go away, im sure some players will still like to play, but it sucks that a lot of players will now be going to a new edition bc it will be harder to get a game up but lets face it, rpgs arent very popular anyway so its always been a trick for me to find players anyway

its going to be hard for me to be very positive about all this but its basically bc i love 4th and it sucks there wont be much more support for it. i always held out hopes for a little mystara action.

sad day to me

Meh, I interpret it as the 4E community not being composed of a bunch of over-entitled whiny little babies like the last editions fans were in the same situation.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

@frosthof It's all or nothing with you? "Do it my way or don't do it"?

I have the feeling that you are going to be a problem, sure criticising the whole thing is okay, but what you are doing is blatant negativity and an obvious attempt to affect the whole thing since it didn't go your way.

Maybe you should just let it go.

Or better try to actually contribute, nobody but a few (and I bet certainly not you) know how much of the edition is 'set in stone'.

You maybe still have a chance to contribute!

If you truly love D&D like you claimed so many times AND 4th edition, you should go ahead and try to make sure some of the good things about 4th Edition get into 5th Edition.

Instead of doing what you are trying to do right now, you know how it will end!

So, I stay away from the forums for a few months and find this anouncement the day I'm suddenly taken by the urge to look at the forums...

Well. farewell, 4E. You were the best thing that could have happened to this old, decrepit, obsolete game and brand that is called D&D.Of course you could have been better. The burden of keeping as many as possible of the sacred cows of your ancestors while trying to bring something new was too much, I fear. You could have gone farther. Maybe you didn't really get your chance, between angry system traditionalists and panicked by sale figures designers. I hope future will bring some respect back to you. I, for sure, will continue playing you with fondness.Enter the Kingdom of the Raven Queen with pride, 4E. The Secret Circle of the Grogn4rds will keep and protect your legacy for the day where your teachings will be needed by future generations of gamers .

So, "5E" lies ahead... well, good luck. I doubt I will be interested - after all, I stopped visiting this site because the content of the L&L articles convinced me that whatever they had in mind wasn't meant for me, and don't hope it will change. But who knows, I may be surprised. Maybe they won't try to rise the old D&D zombie, but will build a new game - a real new game dedicated to epic adventures and imagination. Anyway the design concepts seem to be already well established - we will see what they will give.Time for new things. I hope they won't be a backward evolution. It will be interesting to watch.

I am a huge fan of 4e from the beginning and spent a lot of time on it (even writing an Assassin's Handbook in the CharOp board and starting a second one), but I'm happy 5e is on its way for several reasons:

1) 4e has become cluttered with too much stuff. The main culprits are:- off-turn actions (free, opportunity, immediate) slowing down the game- too many feats- too many powers that look the same

This is typical of any system based on some core books + splatbooks, where the sheer amount of material becomes too cumbersome over time. The main thing I would like to see in 5e is a system that starts and stays "clean" over time, which should lead to less errata or updates.

2) There are some mathematical issues that have become so intertwined with feats that it is now too difficult to unravel this giant knot without causing some serious issues all over the place.

3) 4e magic items are dull. I would welcome a return to more flavourful magic items that don't look like a spare parts catalogue. I would like to have rarity rules in the new system but with a much better consistency than in 4e.

I am a huge fan of 4e from the beginning and spent a lot of time on it (even writing an Assassin's Handbook in the CharOp board and starting a second one), but I'm happy 5e is on its way for several reasons:

1) 4e has become cluttered with too much stuff. The main culprits are:- off-turn actions (free, opportunity, immediate) slowing down the game- too many feats- too many powers that look the same

This is typical of any system based on some core books + splatbooks, where the sheer amount of material becomes too cumbersome over time. The main thing I would like to see in 5e is a system that starts and stays "clean" over time, which should lead to less errata or updates.

2) There are some mathematical issues that have become so intertwined with feats that it is now too difficult to unravel this giant knot without causing some serious issues all over the place.

3) 4e magic items are dull. I would welcome a return to more flavourful magic items that don't look like a spare parts catalogue. I would like to have rarity rules in the new system but with a much better consistency than in 4e.

I pretty much feel exactly the same. Those are even possibly the 3 biggest criticisms I have.

1) 4e has become cluttered with too much stuff. The main culprits are:- off-turn actions (free, opportunity, immediate) slowing down the game- too many feats- too many powers that look the same

I think they should have limited off turn attacks at least (not counting OAs) as 1/encoutner. And one OA a round as a base that could possibly be increased.

Its not that there are too many feats. Its that there are too many feats that are junk. I could go through and eliminate more than half the feats in the game and most people wouldn't even notice. And I really like feats, but there are so many of them at this point that are not that good or so situational you will never use them.

And I agree there are too many powers that look the same. Clerics have 29 at will attacks at this point that do about 10 different things in slightly different combinations. I would rather have had each class get about 5 good powers per level that each had slightly different effects depending on build. For at wills you only need to make a handful of them and give them twists based on builds or feats. Give every cleric the ability to pick righteous brand, but for earth domain let them push, for storm domain let an ally do extra damage, for sun domain let it grant a save, for death it does a lot of extra damage to bloodied enemies, etc or something similar.

And I say this as someone who loves 4E and is disappointed that the next edition is already coming out.

1. The OGL was a travesty. I hope they don't bring it back, and I don't think they will.

2. The biggest problem I see with modularity is that it isn't just about rules, it's about aesthetics. Different editions of D&D had different aesthetics, and of you look at 1E and 2E the aesthetics set them apart more than anything. As little faith as I have in a modular system being able to appeal to conflicting tastes, it's the aesthetic aspect I expect them to royally fail at.

I think the bigger problem is identity. I agree with you, aesthetics is REALLY the heart of things. There were so few really quantitative differences between '0e' and 2e and everything in between MECHANICALLY that they were effectively one game in that sense. 1e and 2e ARE mechanically the same game with really trivial differences, yet as you say they are aesthetically distinct and you can see that was plenty enough to 'split' people between liking one or the other. I know I liked the look and feel of 1e myself and never really cared much for the look or tone of the 2e rules. We still used the 2e rules though, lol.

The other related thing that is going to be an issue with some sort of 'unity edition' of D&D is that the very NAME 'D&D' carries a certain set of values with it. Those varied a good bit with different editions, but at any given point if I said to people "I'm going to run a D&D campaign" then presumably I was playing by the current rules and everyone knew what those were, or you'd say "I'm going to run an AD&D campaign" and people would pretty much know exactly what you meant.

What happens with "unity D&D"? If it can be played 27 different ways it means nothing.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

I think this is absurd. Groups will either decide together what options they want to use (with option-less probably comprising the lion's share), or for convention/tournament/WPN play the DM/organizer will decide and post which options will be used. Your example would probably come down to a sub-set of the options mentioned with everyone being content, but not getting everything they want. Which is the most likely result with any RPG ever produced options or no.

My group and I shelved 4e last fall in favor of Pathfinder. I ran 4e from its launch until then. It was fun. It's a decent fantasy game. However, it just didn't "feel" like D&D. (opinion based yes I know)

Pathfinder feels more like D&D.

I signed up to playtest 5e. I am looking forward to seeing what they do and what direction they go in. It is my hope that 5e moves more towards what "feels like" D&D for me than 4e did. If it does, I will happily commit to it. Until then I will be playing PF/3.5 which feels more like the game I love than 4e does.

While I enjoyed 4e and am not slamming it in any way, there are three main complaints that I had about it as a whole:

1) the powers are too generic. They feel like the same mechanics with different names filling multiple splat books. Not needed.

2) the sheer amount of powers gets too cumbersome. There needs to be classes present that are simpler. You can knock that opinion all you want, but I know in our groups that fighter types are the favored class and they don't need 1000 ways to swing a sword or slash at you with their halberd. Analysis paralysis was a big killer for us...

3) Combat length due to analysis paralysis (see #2) combined with the stupid number of hit points that everything had. PCs with over 1000 hit points after healing surges and monsters with near that in the later levels just ground the game to a halt. I tried many ways to speed combat up but it wasn't happening short of just hand-waving the monsters death or having them run away, which resulted in no challenge for the PCs at all short of jacking up damage output which was me gaming the system to artificially challenge them to circumvent the fact that the monsters had too many HP.

Combats took my group 2.5 - 3 hours to get through. In PF they take 30 minutes or so. You could say we were playing D&D wrong and that's all well and good, but we can play PF right and get a lot done in a gaming session than we could in 4e.

Again, 4e was a good system overall, there were just some things that I started to not like. The good things about 4e were the ease of running a game. That needs carried over IMO.

It is also noted I largely play in groups where people aren't comparing themselves to everyone else so the whole concept of the game being broken because fighter Bob can't do as much death and destruction as wizard Jim is a moot point. We just don't enjoy a system that has 20 classes or so that all feel the same.

You really only need one class in 4e: Adventurer. Then take feats and powers from there and reflavor as you want. That's what 4e felt like. Love it or hate it, we decided it wasn't for us.